Thursday, February 06, 2014

Not Just A Democratic "War On Women"

Earlier today, the NAACP asked lawmakers to sit out the vote on the expulsion of Henriquez, a member of the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus and of the advocacy organization.

“The NAACP, New England Area Conference (NEAC), respectfully requests that the Massachusetts House of Representatives abstain from voting in the matter of the expulsion of Representative Carlos Henriquez, expected to come before the House today,” the organization said in a letter. “In the alternative, Members of the House are asked to vote against the expulsion of their colleague.”

The NAACP notes that Henriquez’s criminal conviction for assaulting a woman is under appeal, and states that the Legislature currently has “no rule for expulsion that applies to misdemeanor convictions.”

“Representative Henriquez was duly elected by the electorate and there is no legal basis upon which the House of Representatives can properly act,” the NAACP said in its statement. “Delaying any decision on the House Ethics Committee’s recommendation at this time would allow for a fair process to take place, as required under the law.”

Henriquez has continued to insist he is innocent of holding down and punching a then-girlfriend after she wouldn’t have sex with him in July of 2012. He was found guilty last month and sentenced to six months in the Middlesex County House of Corrections in Billerica.

Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo, speaking in a statement following the expulsion vote, defended the committee's probe into the assault case as an "independent investigation" which included reviewing 11 police reports, 78 exhibits and nearly 1,000 pages of trial testimony...

The House, (Speaker) DeLeo said, "found that a representative could not serve as a member while incarcerated in jail after being convicted of two charges of a serious nature. With that vote completed, the House will now move forward to address the budget, gun safety, domestic violence and other important legislative matters."

What possible reason could the NAACP have for not wanting this legislator expelled? They must be misogynists!

4 comments:

I would say that the real reason is that they value due process ... and 'incarceration' was ill-defined in the article. Was it a lengthy period, for a conviction, or the standard that virtually every time a woman claims to be a victim of domestic assault, the man gets hauled off to jail ... sometimes even when it's the ma who is the complainant. I think the NAACP is entirely right here, and took an unpopular but entirely justified stance. The fact that the vote for expulsion was 146-5 also shows the legislature was certainly NOT mysoginist, but is unclear on the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' ... so perhaps they should be expelled for not understanding basic civil rights...

MaxUtils: "I would say that the real reason is that they value due process ... and 'incarceration' was ill-defined in the article. Was it a lengthy period, for a conviction, or the standard that virtually every time a woman claims to be a victim of domestic assault, the man gets hauled off to jail ... sometimes even when it's the ma who is the complainant. I think the NAACP is entirely right here, and took an unpopular but entirely justified stance."

He "is serving a six-month jail sentence after being convicted last month of assaulting a former girlfriend in July 2012."

Due process?? Sentenced to 6 months sure sounds like he was convicted in a court of law. While I would tend to agree that "incarcerated" could mean placed in a holding tank for a couple hours, THIS story does not fit that bill. Sorry, NAACP loses this round.